lol@making the parameters so insanely complicated and specific that no one wants to bother with it. I owe myself $20 for calling this.

1) Because that's unnecessary.
2) A2's not going to want to waste putting that much time effort into it when you're probably just going to abandon it after your first couple of posts.
3) You've already proved that you can't debate/communicate in a straight forward manner whilerelying heavily on semantics.

(16-01-2013 08:40 AM)kingschosen Wrote: lol@making the parameters so insanely complicated and specific that no one wants to bother with it. I owe myself $20 for calling this.

1) Because that's unnecessary.
2) A2's not going to want to waste putting that much time effort into it when you're probably just going to abandon it after your first couple of posts.
3) You've already proved that you can't debate/communicate in a straight forward manner whilerelying heavily on semantics.

I kind of figured he was going to try and pull a William Lane Craig and use his 'shotgun style' tactic of lighting too many damn fires, so that the opponent can't possibly hope to counter them all in the time or space allotted, and thus seemingly score points and credibility by not being refuted.

Or more simply; make 20 assertions, and when the next guy only has enough time to counter 5 of them, act like your other 15 are true by default.

In a time limited venue (such as a professional debate at a university), such rules for classic debates are understandable. On an internet forum, such restrictions serve only to needlessly restrict inquiry and discussion. None of us are going to be forced to sit through the entire debate in one sitting, so the time and space restrictions are spurious at best.

(16-01-2013 08:40 AM)kingschosen Wrote: lol@making the parameters so insanely complicated and specific that no one wants to bother with it. I owe myself $20 for calling this.

1) Because that's unnecessary.
2) A2's not going to want to waste putting that much time effort into it when you're probably just going to abandon it after your first couple of posts.
3) You've already proved that you can't debate/communicate in a straight forward manner whilerelying heavily on semantics.

Oh, it's not that complex, it's incredibly tedious. But I do agree completely with all your other points (1-3). It's also not worth the energy wasted especially since he'll just probably start arguing about the "rules" not being followed and claim victory. We've seen this happen before someone puts in time and considerable effort, for a well thought-out rebuttal that the opposition never seemingly reads.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.